You do not Control your Beliefs: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » You do not Control your Beliefs » You do not Control your Beliefs

You do not Control your Beliefs
Try to control your beliefs

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You do not Control your Beliefs

hateloveschool
In the process of dying

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Location: The middle of a cornfield
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 218

Last Blog:

Posted 12/03/07 - 06:51 AM: Subject: You do not Control your Beliefs	#1
I had a philosophy professor who made a bet with my history of philosophy class about beliefs. He said that he would give any of us a million dollars if one of us could deny the existence of God for five minutes, to honestly attemp to deny what is most fundamental to our beliefs. (For others this could be something else.) He said this presupposing that we believed in the existance of God and before he made the bet, he made sure. He of couse was trusting us to be honest with him. in in all truth, I couldn't, and lost out on gettiing a million dollars. I couldn't be able to change my belief about God, not because it wasn't worth a million dollars to do so, but because I could honestly not change my belief. Believe me, if I could, I would. A lot of my problems today would be solved if I could have a million dollars, but I couldn't, so my problems remain. The reason my professor made this bet was to prove a point he was trying to make. (Not to lose out on a million dollars) It is that we do not control our beliefs. By control, he meant the power to influence or direct, and by beliefs, he meant what we see as true, as well as fundamental. So he didn't mean beliefs that were tertiary. He was talking about beliefs which tertiary beliefs rely one: God, what is man, the nature of the universe, if there is a point to life exc. So, my question is: Do you think you can honestly control your beliefs?
Please don't hurt me.

mutemaler
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 294

Posted 12/03/07 - 08:48 AM:	#2
hateloveschool wrote: So, my question is: Do you think you can honestly control your beliefs? What beliefs?? I think in terms of dispositions, and not of the 'self', but of the organism as a whole. We are disposed to think, to see, to know, to act, in a certain way. Call these our dispositions. What we are calling the I, the self, or ego, or consciousness, or conscious deliberation [this cognitive process, one among many] does not directly 'choose' to see, know, or act in any particular way, it draws upon these dispositions (as do other processes). We can however train our dispositions. Through a number of different ways. And this goes far beyond the individual; this kind of inter-programming (of each other) is going on all the time, in our interactions with other individuals, with our societies. It is how we come into to world itself, we first learn to see in the acquisition of language and within the bosom of mother culture. We acquire her seeing. So the first answer to your question would be no, 'we' do not choose to see, know (or 'believe'), or to act in a certain way (in short, our dispostions). But then qualify this immediately, since 'we' can indeed train these dispositions (and are not alone in this obviously). So, the thought, the insight, the knowing a certain way, an action: We do not choose these directly, rather they are spontaneous action from within a probability distribution (in this case our dispositions) which our 'self' can influence. mute back again: "It is that we do not control our beliefs. By control, he meant the power to influence or direct, and by beliefs, he meant what we see as true, as well as fundamental." I was just looking very, very, close at this sentence. A very tricky point. I would say that to 'choose a belief' is non-sensical, which is how this challenge would normally be phrased. But that is not the case here, and if I do indeed have the power to influence my dispositions of my organism (which includes what we are calling beliefs). Small, unmarked bills are fine. Edited by mutemaler on 12/03/07 - 09:33 AM

Philonus
Moderate Intellectual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 75

Posted 12/03/07 - 09:07 PM:	#3
I personally think people are conditioned to think a certain way. In society we're conditioned to accept and practice traditional and cultural manners and values and to actually reject those values are very hard because there are many factors and ways people and society does to drill in values and mannerism into our mind. I think religion is similar because people condition you to believe in God or some supernatural being, they condition you through many ways such as bringing you to church every Sunday. In Church I remember that people sing the same songs almost every week and they pray all the time. Pastors will preach and say the same word over and over again "God, Jesus, Bible, Salvation, ect." Sabbath school does the good job in conditioning children in believing in God by constantly telling them about the same stories about the Bible and associating certain ideas with God. So basically I think it's very hard for us to control or completely reject our beliefs because our mentality or way of thinking is conditioned to believe in certain things. I'm not saying we're brainwashed or anything because to be brainwashed you have to be forced into an unpleasant changing procedure. We all are conditioned to behave certain ways and to believe certain values and thoughts. If you ask an American to be more like a Japanese then it would be very difficult for that individual because he was raised and conditioned to think certain ways and act certain ways that are American. Vice versa a Japanese can't mimic American values or culture since that individual was raised and conditioned to act and believe certain ways.What I'm trying to point out is that everything we were taught from child hood is drilled into our deepest conscious thoughts that we cannot easily dispose of unless something traumatic happens. We can't really "control" our beliefs but I think overtime we can change our beliefs little by little if we choose to.

hateloveschool
In the process of dying

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Location: The middle of a cornfield
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 218

Last Blog:

Posted 12/03/07 - 09:41 PM:	#4
Philonus, I would disagree that my belief in God is a conditioning. Yes, I grew up in an environment where conditioning did take place, but what was condiitoning, has now been replaced with conscious beliefs which I cannot be deny. But I do see your point, many of our beliefs are conditioned, and much of what we believe is conditioned. If we are conscious of this conditioning, wouldn't it be possible to reject this conditioning? For instance, I am conscious of my conditioning to believe in God, but in all honestly, I consciously still believe in God, not because of the conditioning, but because I simply cannot deny what I see as true...
Please don't hurt me.

kkiiji
Overcome

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 809

Posted 12/03/07 - 10:01 PM:	#5
Tell me why you believe in god, and I'll tell you why that disposition(as mutemaler put it) doesn't come from you. To respond to mutemaler though, the tricky part that you found was not so tricky. You think that you can influence your dispositions right? However, can you influence why you would want to influence your dispositions? In order to take the action of influencing your dispositions, you must have a reason, and that reason itself is influenced. Also, I have read about your idea of probability distribution to refute determinism, please explain this idea because I do not see where the probability lies. I have made another topic regarding the flaws of determinism, please take a visit.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2289

Posted 12/04/07 - 04:34 AM:	#6
The history professor is incorrect. People's beliefs change all the time, over time. Some beliefs are mistaken and get corrected, others change with significant life events and can even change under influence of drugs or mental illness. What the professor is asking is not a change in belief, but for people to demonstrate the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and express the alternative, (which may require practice). I got lots of practice as a Christian and an atheist, so I can argue from those points-of-view, (and am familiar with the world-view), sometimes better than others who still hold those beliefs/viewpoints. One turning point in my life was while discussing Christianity with an Indonesian friend. I asked why he was a Muslim, and he stated "because I'm Indonesian", as if I had asked him why his hair was black. I had to go back and consider how much of my beliefs were based on how I identified myself, my race and my nationality. For me to hold a belief, it would have to be independent of not only conditioning, but of self-identification -- it had to be something independent of the observer. It took me a while to separate the two, and eventually came around to the viewpoint that Christianity was as strange as those old fairy tales and legends from other cultures. I also turned a corner into existentialism when I realized that I was then free to choose what to believe and why.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

moreno
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 198

Posted 12/04/07 - 08:40 AM:	#7
The test was absurd. 1) it was a bit like asking you not to think of an elephant 2) if the test did not take place, there was a very good chance that during those five minutes you would not have thought about God at all 3) at best - and I doubt the test even holds for this - the test showed that you could not change the belief instantly. A belief that was years and years in the making AND being reinforced. 4) it seems to confuse belief with simply the words in the mind. 5) he does not seem to have considered performance anxiety in his testing parameters 6) he was offering worldly gain to give up a spiritual belief. If he thought for a moment he would have realized that the religion has taken steps to prepare you for moments like this- for example when Satan comes to entice you to leave the faith. I am no longer a Christian, but I sure would have experienced a moral dilemma taking such a test. Why not try a much less charged belief? Something less all encompassing. It was a poor test and he drew poor conclusions from it. I think it is possible to change one's beliefs. I think it tends to take time. You probably have to decide to undergo certain experiences and let these experiences challenge current beliefs.

hateloveschool
In the process of dying

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Location: The middle of a cornfield
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 218

Last Blog:

Posted 12/04/07 - 09:25 AM:	#8
moreno wrote: . 1) it was a bit like asking you not to think of an elephant But doesn't this simply prove his point? That to deny what you believe which is most fundamental is impossible? This doesn't mean that beliefs don't change, but you are not in control of these beliefs. 2) if the test did not take place, there was a very good chance that during those five minutes you would not have thought about God at all Just because ou don't think about a belief, it doesn't mean you deny it. 3) at best - and I doubt the test even holds for this - the test showed that you could not change the belief instantly. A belief that was years and years in the making AND being reinforced. Why couldn't it? Just because you hold to something for a very long time, doesn't mean it takes a long time for you to remove it. 5) he does not seem to have considered performance anxiety in his testing parameters How would have it changed the test? 6) he was offering worldly gain to give up a spiritual belief. If he thought for a moment he would have realized that the religion has taken steps to prepare you for moments like this- for example when Satan comes to entice you to leave the faith. I am no longer a Christian, but I sure would have experienced a moral dilemma taking such a test. Why not try a much less charged belief? Something less all encompassing. He was using this as an example that you cannot change fundamental beliefs because you're not in control of them. You could change the idea from the belief for God, for the belief that you exist. swstephe, So what you're saying that certain beliefs are based on identity? I would agree with this statement, and from your explanation of why you are existentialist, it's a valid point. You believed in the truth of Christianity because it was a part of your identity. What I am talking about is not beliefs which are a part of your identity, they can be, but they are fundamentally beliefs which cannot be changed by a choice. Hence my example of my professor's question. You do have a point, people's beliefs change all the time, over time. But my professor isn't sayign that beliefs don't change.
Please don't hurt me.

kkiiji
Overcome

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 809

Posted 12/04/07 - 11:38 AM:	#9
The point here is like mutemaler put it, there is no I to actually choose what to believe in. For whatever reason you "choose" to believe in something, that reason has influenced you into believing it. It's impossible to believe in something for no apparent reason at all, that's just not possible. Say you analyze all the religions and pick one of them because it suits you the best, you have "chose" to pick that religion because of your existing beliefs and conditions and the existing features of that religion. These are the factors that practically chose for you, what you call "I"(as in I chose it) in this case would be the previous beliefs and conditions you had that allowed you to say that this certain religion suits you best. I believe this is what the professor was trying to show, that you have less control over your actions than you think, existentialist or not. Existentialism I do admire though, to me it depicts a point in one's life where he has enough conditions to be able to be truly creative. Whether these creative decisions are free will or not, I'd say no, yet that doesn't bother me. In the end it seems to come down to creativity(more conditioning, enough to conflict,resolve and create) or dogmatism(few conditioning, more like slavery).
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

moreno
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 198

Posted 12/04/07 - 11:39 AM:	#10
hateloveschool wrote: But doesn't this simply prove his point? That to deny what you believe which is most fundamental is impossible? This doesn't mean that beliefs don't change, but you are not in control of these beliefs. The inablity to deny what you believe is different from not being able to change your beliefs. If your professor only meant we cannot control our beliefs like, for example, we can control whether are eyelids are up or down, OK. Though I would bet some actors could get far enough into a role to do even this. If you don't think Sean Penn or Edward Norton could be anti-semitic for five minutes, I think you are underestimating their skills. and I don't mean just in terms of outward behavior and words. I mean they would believe what they were saying for that time. 2) if the test did not take place, there was a very good chance that during those five minutes you would not have thought about God at all Just because ou don't think about a belief, it doesn't mean you deny it. What I was pointing out here was that the test itself pushes you into the belief for that period of time. I think we actually have more than one belief even about the same thing. Our beliefs shift. We doubt. In your case you might spend five minutes worrying there is no God. The test itself makes one more rigid, scrutinizing ourselves for exception moments of belief, AS IF usually we were somehow consistant. And a moment of belief means we failed the test. A better test would be could we mainly hold a contrary belief for 5 minutes. I also think there needs to be a discussion of how one can verify what beliefs one has, so you know what you are doing during the test. But this is not the weakest point in his test. I suggest we drop this part and focus on the others. 3) at best - and I doubt the test even holds for this - the test showed that you could not change the belief instantly. A belief that was years and years in the making AND being reinforced. Why couldn't it? Just because you hold to something for a very long time, doesn't mean it takes a long time for you to remove it. You're not being logical here. I agree with what you say above, but that is not the point. Since it took years to be put in place the belief MIGHTtake more than a couple of seconds to remove. His test, at best, only proves that a long term, well trained belief cannot be instantly removed. If it takes me an week to build a stone wall, the fact that I cannot take it down in 5 minutes does not mean I cannot take it down. Further as I said above: some people could have passed that test because they have trained themselves to shift things that most of us leave alone. I am thinking of actors, roll players, people who work with psychodrama, gestalt therapy, etc. I have worked with all of these and have taken on rolls in which I absolutely believed certain things I do not normally and for longer than 5 minutes. Sometimes it was hard to come out of the roll. 5) he does not seem to have considered performance anxiety in his testing parameters How would have it changed the test? For example, he should chosen a vastly less charged belief. He should have allowed you to choose the five minutes. It should have been done in private. Probably some other parameters could have been changed to make it more relaxed and reduce performance anxiety. He made a bit statement and only tested it in a very specific, highly charged way. Poor methodology. 6) he was offering worldly gain to give up a spiritual belief. If he thought for a moment he would have realized that the religion has taken steps to prepare you for moments like this- for example when Satan comes to entice you to leave the faith. I am no longer a Christian, but I sure would have experienced a moral dilemma taking such a test. Why not try a much less charged belief? Something less all encompassing. He was using this as an example that you cannot change fundamental beliefs because you're not in control of them. You could change the idea from the belief for God, for the belief that you exist. That's probably a better one. Less moral. Would belief in democracy count? I think he needs to make a clear definition of 'fundamental'.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.